4 ms·

It feels like you left a chapter or two out. You mention in the citations that "Hierarchies are painless in our system through nested parsers, parser inheritanc

It feels like you left a chapter or two out. You mention in the citations that "Hierarchies are painless in our system through nested parsers, parser inheritance, parser mixins, and nested measurements." Nothing else in the article gives any hint as to what those things are or how your system implements them except nested measurements. It's unclear at all what a parser is in your system. It is however clear that what you call "parsers" aren't parsers. Is the list of "parsers" a schema definition? Overall it seems like your ideas would make more sense if you used more widely adopted language to describe it. "Concepts" are records, "measurements" are fields.

breck 2y ago
> It feels like you left a chapter or two out. I agree with you. More details will come out over time but I wanted to keep yesterday's paper a single page. > You mention in the citations that "Hierarchies are painless in our system through nested parsers, parser inheritance, parser mixins, and nested measurements." Nothing else in the article gives any hint as to what those things are or how your system implements them except nested measurements. It's unclear at all what a parser is in your system. Below is a link to a web IDE we built. You can see parsers (on the left), and concepts (on the right). Nested parsers and parser inheritance are demonstrated. Mixins is not currently in that branch yet. Ignore the "cells" stuff at top (that turned out to be an unneeded division between lines parsers and word parsers). https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer#url%20https%3A%2F%2Fpldb.io%2Fpldb.grammar%0AprogramUrl%20https%3A%2F%2Fpldb.io%2Fconcepts%2Frecfiles.scroll https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer#url%20https%3A%2F%2F... > Overall it seems like your ideas would make more sense if you used more widely adopted language to describe it. "Concepts" are records, "measurements" are fields. Yes, concepts often map to records or rows. Measures to fields or columns. Measurements to the cells in a spreadsheet. There are reasons for my terminology, that should become clearer over time.
- the_duke 2y ago
  From a quick scan, it sounds like you re-invented a lot of the concepts of semantic data, just with different terminology and a different text format. (RDF, triples, ...)
  - 0x445442 2y ago
    I wish there was a defacto/canonical site that housed free papers that people could go search before embarking on these types of efforts. Perhaps there is but when I attempt these types of searches I get directed to pay walled ACM type links or Github "Papers We Love" type links.
    - breck 2y ago
      You might enjoy https://pldb.io/ https://pldb.io/, which is a paywall free, open source, public domain, database you can browse completely locally, with information on all of these kinds of prior languages. :)
    - mynotaccount 2y ago
      sci-hub
    - sleno 2y ago
      Funny, someone linked me here. I just posted a project that got a bit of traction related to this: papertalk.xyz
  - breck 2y ago
    It would certainly be fair to add RDF/triples/semantic web, to prior work. I spent many years exploring that stuff. We are aiming at roughly the same problem. Our implementation has solved some important details.
    - FabHK 2y ago
      Might be worth highlighting some of the problems solved (particularly those that earlier ideas haven't).

breck 2y ago

> It feels like you left a chapter or two out. I agree with you. More details will come out over time but I wanted to keep yesterday's paper a single page. > You mention in the citations that "Hierarchies are painless in our system through nested parsers, parser inheritance, parser mixins, and nested measurements." Nothing else in the article gives any hint as to what those things are or how your system implements them except nested measurements. It's unclear at all what a parser is in your system. Below is a link to a web IDE we built. You can see parsers (on the left), and concepts (on the right). Nested parsers and parser inheritance are demonstrated. Mixins is not currently in that branch yet. Ignore the "cells" stuff at top (that turned out to be an unneeded division between lines parsers and word parsers). https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer#url%20https%3A%2F%2Fpldb.io%2Fpldb.grammar%0AprogramUrl%20https%3A%2F%2Fpldb.io%2Fconcepts%2Frecfiles.scroll https://jtree.treenotation.org/designer#url%20https%3A%2F%2F... > Overall it seems like your ideas would make more sense if you used more widely adopted language to describe it. "Concepts" are records, "measurements" are fields. Yes, concepts often map to records or rows. Measures to fields or columns. Measurements to the cells in a spreadsheet. There are reasons for my terminology, that should become clearer over time.

the_duke 2y ago
From a quick scan, it sounds like you re-invented a lot of the concepts of semantic data, just with different terminology and a different text format. (RDF, triples, ...)
- 0x445442 2y ago
  I wish there was a defacto/canonical site that housed free papers that people could go search before embarking on these types of efforts. Perhaps there is but when I attempt these types of searches I get directed to pay walled ACM type links or Github "Papers We Love" type links.
  - breck 2y ago
    You might enjoy https://pldb.io/ https://pldb.io/, which is a paywall free, open source, public domain, database you can browse completely locally, with information on all of these kinds of prior languages. :)
  - mynotaccount 2y ago
    sci-hub
  - sleno 2y ago
    Funny, someone linked me here. I just posted a project that got a bit of traction related to this: papertalk.xyz
- breck 2y ago
  It would certainly be fair to add RDF/triples/semantic web, to prior work. I spent many years exploring that stuff. We are aiming at roughly the same problem. Our implementation has solved some important details.
  - FabHK 2y ago
    Might be worth highlighting some of the problems solved (particularly those that earlier ideas haven't).